Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Monday September 02, 2013 @11:01PM
from the about-that-cold-war dept.

mendax writes "The New York Times reports that the Russian government is warning its citizens to not travel to countries that have an extradition treaty with the United States, noting that 'detentions of Russian citizens in various countries, at the request of American law enforcement, have become more frequent.' The article reports the Russian foreign ministry as saying,'Experience shows that the judicial proceedings against those who were in fact kidnapped and taken to the U.S. are of a biased character, based on shaky evidence, and clearly tilted toward conviction.'"

Russian citizens are stealing many millions of dollars, mostly from US banks and citizens. The Russian authorities won't stop them and won't extradite them. Now they are complaining when USA law enforcement issues warrants for their arrest and other countries act on those warrants.

While there are certainly Russians that should be extradited to the US to stand trial, it's the United States that's abused their extradition powers, falsified evidence, and flat out lied to participating countries in order to arrest those whom there is little to no evidence against and are often being persecuted for political reasons. Remember, we have the highest incarceration rate in, not only the world, but all of human history. With that kind of record you have to see how a lot of countries would see our judicial system as a bit suspect as well. The Russians may protect their ultra rich from prosecution but we do exactly the same thing. To this day, not a single executive from the whole 2008 banking mess has even been indited, simply because the justice department didn't want to upset the markets. We are certainly no better than the Russians when it comes to justice, we're probably even worse.

Russian citizens are stealing many millions of dollars, mostly from US banks and citizens.

As a Russian citizen, I take offense at this claim. The criminals in question are not stealing many millions of dollars from US banks and citizens. They're stealing millions of dollars mostly from Russian citizens, and otherwise screwing our country up. At the same time, they send their children to study and work in US, because they don't want their kids to live in the mess they have themselves created. Denying them the ability to do so is an efficient deterrent, and so I fully support and encourage US to p

I hate to break it to you but both nations of the cold war were bad guys and they (or their successors in the case of the Soviet Union) still are. Old trick of using external "foes" for control and limiting dissent and its impact. The meaningful major challenge as always is in creating and implementing reforms and making them stick to prevent backsliding to the bad old days.

I would agree that we live in a police state now. But no one has tested it yet

He has a good point. Not sure why he was modded down to 1. Elliot Spitzer is a good example of someone who posed a direct threat to Wall Street and suddenly its discovered that he visited prostitutes and our establishment media uses it to destroy his career. I wouldn't say everything is in place just yet, however, because at some levels we still have a functioning democracy. The most important thing is to use what's left of it to get the influence of big money out of government as best we can.

Do US Citizens need to fear the government knocking on the door at midnight?

Yes, actually (you're just one anonymous tip away from having a SWAT team redecorate your home), but they are more scared of being accused of a crime, put on a ter'rist list, investigated for child porn possession, or sued into bankruptcy.Different tactics, same result.

Were John Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Glenn Beck or Bill Orielly arrested for their blatant attacks of the government?

Those people do not threaten the regime. At best they are largely ignored; at worst, they may effect a slight shift in voting patterns between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans, depending on the political party they happen to rant against, which serves nicely to distract the population from the real issues.

No? Ohh ok. Then once again, I bring up that while not perfect, the US is far from the Totalitarian state some think it is.

You don't need to beat up your slaves if other methods of control are more effective.

The word totalitarian has a meaning. A country working towards gay rights is not a country that it becoming totalitarian.

Yes, it does. Allow me to use the wording from Wikipedia: "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."How exactly "gay rights" interfere with totalitarianism?

Is the US doing things it shouldn't be (Spying on its citizens, TSA, etc.), sure. But that is far from Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany. You know, actual Totalitarian Police States.

And it is, in fact, not very different from what many other nations are already doing. Modern Germany, France, the UK, and lots of other nations have been spying on their citizens for decades and are still much more intrusive into their citizens' personal lives than even the US under Obama.

North Korea and Nazi Germany are/were military dictatorships. In a military dictatorship, there's no pretense of due process. There is one leader and if you cross them, you suffer the consequences. East Germany was very much a police state, but one could argue that it was under the control of the USSR and not that unique an example.

I think categorically denying that the U.S. is a police state is dangerous. Something very unhealthy is happening in the U.S.. People don't even feel free to talk openly about it anymore. Names are being taken down via social media and citizens are being secretly spied upon without due process. The pretense of due process is still there. Guantanamo is considered "different" and the DHS operates in a space which is also "an exception". The government still feels it needs to explain its actions to the media.

The fact that you would call the US a Totalitarian Police State means that you have very little understanding of the a Totalitarian Police State actually is.

Is the US doing things it shouldn't be (Spying on its citizens, TSA, etc.), sure. But that is far from Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany. You know, actual Totalitarian Police States.

A "Totalitarian State" strives to have total control of its subjects. A "Totalitarian Police State" utilizes the police to achieve that objective.The states you mentioned (Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany) used violent means on a large scale to achieve such control but the US does not need to. It can use different tactics to achieve its objectives.

Let's try an example:

1) You're in elementary school. Bobby, the schoolyard bully, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to him, he and his friends wil

I don't understand how we could legally arrest Bout. He wasn't a citizen of the U.S., he was never in the U.S., and he never committed a crime on U.S. soil.

He was a citizen of a country that often supported the side opposite of ours in conflicts, but that's not a crime.

Kissinger gave material support to regimes that were committing war crimes. If Russia wants to prosecute Kissinger, would we be legally required to turn him over? If Kissinger's airplane was forced to stop in Russia, could the Russians arrest him?

Maybe you don't believe in following international law. Maybe you believe in realpolitik and might makes right. OK, but you no longer have grounds for moral outrage when a militant group sets off a truck full of dynamite outside your embassy. They're just playing by the same rules you are.

Not that Russia was ever a major ally to the US, but more and more countries are ceasing to put up with the hostile nature of the US's foreign relations policy. The US is failing in all sorts of relations due to its policies on copyrights, "terrorism," worthless wars and drug enforcement, and increasingly, other nations are no longer putting up with it.

Throughout its history, the US has more or less never had any interest in the well-being of other nations they enter relations with. Of course, you could perhaps say this is true of all nations. However, if the US is going to be so self-centered in its relations, then the best thing for the world is for them to have less of an influence in strong-arming other nations into agreeing with them. This influence historically has come largely from dominating economic pressure, but we'll see if it lasts - hopefully it doesn't. The last thing the world needs is to become more like the US.

Most likely this is crap, just political gamesmanship, but the sad thing is that US actions and policies have given the country such a shady reputation that everyone has to at least give it a good look.

All during the cold war, when somebody would criticize violations of human rights in America, our leaders would point to the USSR and tell us that in Russia it was even worse.

Most of our cold-war propaganda was based on making Russia's lack of freedom a caricature of our own lack of freedom.

For example, our propagandists said that in Russia, people weren't free to travel. (Not true. I've met people who grew up in the Soviet Block and traveled all over the Soviet Block. East Germany was a popular vacation sp

I did the googling. Looks like US is trying to get to people who are not US citizens, and never broke any US laws on US soil. Doesn't sound right to me. I'm sure I've broken at least your copyright laws, and alcohol laws, and most likely many others. As it happens I don't live in the US, and sure as hell am not planning to come for a visit, which is a pity, because i really wanted to see the statue of liberty, that once stood for well.. liberty. And grand canyon. And las vegas. Luckily the world has many pl

in Putin's Russia, you can be arrested for voicing political dissent, especially with regard to the state-controlled media. That's not exactly the freedom we know and love here in America, where the major news shows refuse to promote true and open dissent, and would rather feature the FUCKING KARDASHIANS ON A "NEWS" SHOW.

It's easy to take this as an opportunity to denigrate the US. The level of corruption is far worse in Russia and the civil rights protections a fraction of what US citizens enjoy.

If Snowdon has been Russian and escaped with FSB documents, he wouldn't be alive right now. In case nobody noticed, Russia assassinates inconvenient people.

It's just a shame that the U.S. with it's anti-freedom policies is no longer the obvious opposite to the dictatorship. There's enough doubt in the mind of U.S. supporters to subconsciously equate both countries as being against the people, despite the fact Russia is so much worse.

America used to be land of the free, home of the brave. A place to aspire to, a place to look up to.

That all changed because of an old man living in a cave who killed fewer people in September 2001 (3000) than died on america's roa

Very much "pot calling kettle"... USA and Russia are both famously historically "guilty" of this, as well as accusing each other of this.

however, all of the signs of psychological projection, in the more precise dialect.

*aside* even considering that, it's still safer to do business in the USA, for the most part. At least the illegal detentions, seizures, etc actually are well enough documented that folks who are at risk can usually avoid entering. Russia's still not very much into the concept of "free speech".

There is a joke, but it's hardly funny. The joke is that the Russians are warning their people about America in the same way that America warned it's citizens about Russia in the 70's and 80's.

The American government has a very low level of support from everyone. Also, I'm sure that in many countries, the government has been noted to shit-talk America. Why is their so much more hype suddenly since the Snowden leak(s), and Syria's civil war? Everyone's worried about war. I know people of sane mind and body, that are preparing by stocking up on canned goods. And it's the American government that they're scared of, and it's mutated mentality of destruction of anything that it deems "bad" in the light of the moment only. Who wouldn't be afraid of such a government?

It's totally sane of any country to warn it's people about not having basic human rights in America. It used to be a kick-ass place to visit. Now, not so much.

There is a joke, but it's hardly funny. The joke is that the Russians are warning their people about America in the same way that America warned it's citizens about Russia in the 70's and 80's.

Or alternatively, Russians are warning their people about America in the same way that Soviets warned their people about America in the 70's and 80's. The exact same bullshit about the boogiemen over there has been flung both ways for centuries. These days we have the Internet to open our eyes, but the lies are pretty much the same as those that started the Punic wars 2200 years ago.

the irony, of course, is that nobody warns travelers about visiting Russia because we already know that Putin, who's been running the country for years and years, is an "elected president" in name only, and pretty much serves as an unelected, KGB-sponsored dictator. There is little evidence to suggest that Russia would give anyone a fair trial. ex. Pussy Riot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot [wikipedia.org]

> They arrested somebody who couldn't break American law because he was never in America and wasn't a citizen.

According to the Wikipedia page you quote, he was arrested for smuggling arms to FARC for use by rebels in Columbia against US troops.

Assuming he did supply arms to the enemy of an ally, that still doesn't break US law, nor does it make him a war criminal. The arms supplier of your enemy isn't a war criminal, and someone who does something out of your jurisdiction is, like it or not, free from your prosecutors.

TLDR; US forces has no legal standing to arrest, convict or detain their enemies arms suppliers.

Interestingly enough, the US didn't bother to charge the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange when he flew to the Colombian jungles to solicit the FARC's business. Instead Grassley got the largest bonus of any NYSE president in history. I suppose the FARC has to have some way to launder its money in order to be able to pay Bout and his kind.

Those people aren't stocking up because the Government is out to get them specifically. What they are typically afraid of is that the Government will push the public to far and that all hell will break loose. They want to be able to hole up at home or in some safe place with their canned food and shotguns and wait it out. If they decide to come after you specifically you are toast. Other than have top notch lawyers on retainer there isn't much you can do in that situation. So what those people are preparing

Actually you did imply that when you asked how it can be harmful if it is the "simple truth".

But OK. So you just didn't understand how implying that the US is issuing warrants on "shaky evidence" is attempt to bring into question the quality of the evidence that the US is using to issue warrants for Russian Citizens and how that might be harmful to US interests. But you do understand enough about the situation to make the determination that the evidence being used is indeed "shaky"

I would argue that this provides an opportunity for our government to either show the warrants are not "shaky" but the result of good police procedure with sound probable cause arguments, or if they are not get rid of the bad agents and impeach the bad judges. This would enhance our people's faith in good just law enforcement and strengthen our society.

As it is today, given everything else that has come out recently and all the lies Uncle Sam has been caught in on these subjects; I am more incline to take the Russians at there word. Consequently it makes it a tougher environment for law enforcement when they can't count on cooperation form their fellow cotizens

Since we learned to cover it with so much bull and feelgood words that it doesn't matter anymore. We don't invade countries anymore, we join a peacekeeping mission, and after we won (sorry, after we reestablished peace) we don't occupy it, we establish a military presence in the area. There we don't infiltrate enemy groups and commit worse atrocities against the civilians than they do to convince them we're also some of the "bad guys", so we can ferret out their leaders for assassination, we engage in covert operations where we have to regretfully accept inevitable but necessary drawbacks for the local population, to enable us to identify top terrorists to neutralize them. And we don't do that with carpet bombing from unmanned drones where we fire at the least hunch that there might be someone we want to hit in the area, we launch preemptive strikes against the terrorist strongholds using top of the line equipment to protect the lives of our men and women serving in our military...

Need I go on or do you simply want to watch the News for more drivel like that?

Point the citizenry at a different country and warn them about it, so that the citizenry overlook the problems at home. Classic propaganda is to create an external enemy.

This is true, as it speaks to the reason behind the statement. Sadly, this doesn't really speak to the potential truth of the statement itself. Truth can be propaganda, as well as lies.

Judging from my experience with American law enforcement, and "justice", and everything else I've read, this smells a wee bit truthful. It still serves Russia nicely (them being, perhaps, bigger dicks than us), but I still think they might have a valid point. We're not the good guys, by any stretch. We only look out for our own interests, and by "our", I of course mean only our governments, not "our" as in "we the people".

Propaganda works best where you have at least an element of truth. The conviction rates, sentences and so on for the poor and rich in the US legal system are extremely different (look also at black vs white). Imagine how much worse it is for a poor (relative to the USA - he could be pretty rich at home) Russian who doesn't properly speak English and has the huge psychological pressure of having nobody nearby he knows at all.

Simple fact: the US legal system is deeply scary; there is a huge false conviction rate. Remember what we are always told, death sentences are the ones that are most investigated and are 100% sure. The innocence project shows the US has a minimum of a 12% false conviction rate [caught.net] for death sentences; other crimes must be much worse. Unlike people convicted before DNA evidence, nothing new will show up after the fact to save you.

Most convictions in the US are "shaky" and many are simply wrong. I'm sure it's even worse in most of Russia, but if you are having to compare yourself with Russia then you have already gone mad.

The problem with false conviction actually involves a variety of issues, incredibly poor handling of eye witnesses, prosecuting attorneys counting coup towards political advancement and the punishment proffered on innocent defendants who refuse to plea out because of their innocence (and conversely innocent defendants that choose to plea out rather that face draconian sentences.)

All off this is weighted heavily against poor. Public defense is a joke in most states, and nonexistent in the very places it's most needed. Our system has slowly been reworked to criminalize poverty, mental illness and public protest. I can understand the informed of other nations wondering what the hell happened to the USA. I know I do.

My thoughts exactly. It seems to me that US System has many flaws - no system is perfect but here the system is bad by principle - especially in drug cases. But even in normal criminal case not associated with drugs you may come to be offered confession for limited sentence or face a chance of losing the trial and getting much worse sentence because you were fighting it - how this has anything to do with justice I am not sure. Of course purpose of such solutions is not justice but efficiency i.e. making people motivated to settle down to save money for the state i.e. tax payer. This is not working properly because public prosecutors need convictions not justice. That is more efficient for them and their office. But what do I know - I am just a commie from an old continent....

cost cutting is part of the reason, but increasing the conviction rate is a much bigger part, it justifies the system because there's quantifiable "proof" that it's working - they must have been guilty, if they confessed or plead guilty.

it's also useful politically, to make people or organisations seem "tough on crime".

IMO, plea bargaining should be illegal with severe penalties for prosecutors who offer it.

at the very least, the fact that a deal was offered should be enough to reduce all charges and potential sentencing to the offer as a *maximum* - the cops/prosecutor wouldn't have offered it if they thought it was too lenient for the crime.

FWIW, I live in a country where such evil shit either doesn't happen or isn't common enough to be a noticable problem - although cops here (as everywhere) always pile on resist arrest/assault police charges just because they can - it's your word against theirs, and they are presumed to be honest by the courts.

The very thought of a "justice" system where it is considered *normal* to use the threat of insanely harsh penalties to coerce a guilty plea fills me with horror.

but then, our legal system isn't politicised - deliberately so, with clear and jealously guarded separation of powers - and we don't do stupid things like elect senior cops or judges. ours are professionals that work their way up through the ranks, not demagogues - which has problems of its own, but IMO they're nowhere near as bad as the problem of illiterate, incompent, prejudiced morons being elected just because they're popular or good at lying in public.

I remember all the american anti-russian, anti-soviet, anti-communist propaganda from when i was growing up in the 70s and 80s - there isn't a single shitful thing that the evil russians were accused of then that you americans aren't doing - or exceeding - now, and with far greater efficiency due to modern computers and technology.

Especially since the USA (from perspectives of Canadians at least, and probably other countries that DO have a left and right) - doesn't have a "left". At best it has an "extreme right" and a "somewhat more moderate right"

Your comment will probably get a lot of responses, just because of the hatred and misinformation that it contains. I'm not fan of the far left (nor the far right), but let's for a minute remember who created the department of homeland security.
George W. Bush.
Let's also take a look at who created the TSA.
George W. Bush.
Who signed the Patriot Act into law?
George W. Bush.
I don't know about you, but I don't think any of the people listed above are part of the 'Extreme Left'. Yet somehow the people I listed above have done a fabulous job restricting freedom.
I'm not really interested in left or right. I just find it sad that people like you can't distinguish the forest through the trees: ALL our politicians have contributed to this problem. The sad fact remains: Russia is right. We are becoming a police state, especially with regards to extradition and our borders where we claim our laws don't apply.

And you best believe there are a nation of lefties howling like banshees about it. Nobody who believes in human rights, personal liberty, or due process thinks the Patriot Act is anything less than a Neo-Fascist Nightmare come true... I'd be happy to introduce you to communities of Dems looking to impeach Obama.

I'm not sure what the vegans and homosexuals have to do with this, but if i remember, a lot of this started under bush and has been embraced wholeheartedly by the present administration. If you think this is about left vs. right, you don't understand american politics.

I'm not sure what the vegans and homosexuals have to do with this, but if i remember, a lot of this started under bush and has been embraced wholeheartedly by the present administration. If you think this is about left vs. right, you don't understand american politics.

I dont think anyone understands 'Murican politics and if anyone did understand 'Murican politics it would be instantaneously replaced with something even more unexplainable and convoluted.

Hah! You know, I would never have associated that reference with something as stupid as politics, but you know the fuck of it is you're right! I mean, the state couldn't work if people saw it for what it was, so it would have to morph or evolve to survive that eventuality. You sir or madam have given me an interesting line of philosophical thought to pursue, and for that rarity I thank you.

Unfortunately this is the world we in the US now live in. Courtesy of the extreme Left we are now living effectively in a police state.

Yeah, the "left". Maybe you are looking upside down at times. Both "left" and "right" are advancing it relentlessly. You know, to "protect the children" and other such diversions and lies used to impose totalitarian laws.

Police state doesn't give a fuck if it is left or right. It only cares to gain more control and maintain status quo.

The extreme left? In the USA? Are you serious? To what very limited extent there even is a left in the USA it's what Europeans call the center or center-right...and this teabaggery gets modded up on/. What's next, Glenn Beck's goldline scam being pushed as sound investment and a top story? Weeping Jesus on the Cross what the Hell's happened to this place?

Courtesy of the extreme Left we are now living effectively in a police state.

Holy shit, you quit taking your meds again, didn't you? There isn't, and hasn't been an "extreme left" in this country in almost 40 years. It's that the extreme right keeps moving more extremely right that makes people who used to be described as "moderate Republicans" (like Barak Obama) look like lefties. These days, idiots like you, who use sentences like the above quoted, wouldn't have allowed Ronald Reagan to run as a Repu

This is a complicated problem. We're just getting out long drawn out wars, that have bled our economy dry. The rebels aren't exactly a bowl of cherries and picking the lesser of the two evils is quick becoming a full time job. Our closest bar fight partner just begged off. How big a barbeque do you have? Pin pricks, or ground the entire Syrian air Force? Boots on the ground? What are the repercussions in the region for any of the choices we make?

There wasn't much outrage in May because there was no evidence that the rebels used nerve gas in May. There was accusations made by Carla Del Ponte who was a member of an inquiry team for the UN who once made a name for herself prosecuting the Mafia. She claimed that it was the rebels trying to make it look like it was the Syrian government... However that wasn't backed up by any concrete evidence, and her colleagues disagreed (mostly again, pointing out that there was no evidence). The biggest question mark is of course where the rebels would have gotten the nerve gas. But probably the main reason most people ignored it? The source. Carla Del Ponte has a long history of making up allegations that later prove to be false. In 2005 she accused the Vatican of sheltering Croatian war criminals. She accused NATO pilots of war crimes in Kosovo before quickly recanting. And finally she published a book about Albanian doctors butchering Serbian prisoners and selling their organs, allegations that eventually led her to prosecute. All the accused have since been acquitted as Del Ponte was unable to satisfy any sort of burden of proof.

It may be bad form for one to comment upon his own posting but Russia's position is, more or less, correct on this issue. American courts leave much to be desired in terms of fairness or actual justice. But Russia's are worse. American prisons are generally pretty awful compared to those of Western Europe. But Russia's are worse. The only thing I can see going for Russia is that it doesn't have a death penalty, which may be worse in that life in a Russian prison could easily make a person wish for deat